Peh Swee Chin J:

[1] It is rather remarkable that while the purchase price of the house in this action is a mere RM78,5000, the parties to this action have involved not only a housing developer-cum-vendor, but also a firm of architects, a firm of engineers and the local authority of the area in which the house in question is situated. What is really amazing is that the legal position on which this action must have depended when it was filed, literally has gone through nothing short of a revolution by the time the hearing of this very long case was concluded on 14 January 1995. First, the evidence of the case need be set out and I will try to make short work of it without losing sight of the salient points, however.

[2] The plaintiffs above entered on 29 November 1983 into a sale and purchase agreement (P1) with the first defendant, a builder-cum-vendor when buying a double-storey link house amongst a row of similar houses for the sum of RM78,500 (the plaintiffs are hereafter calleld 'the purchasers' and the first defendant, "the vendor/builder'). Clauses of the agreement which are relevant to this judgment are set out below:

12 The said building shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with the specifications described in the second Schedule hereto and in accordance with the plans approved by the appropriate authority or other competent authority which specifications and plans have been accepted and aapproved by the purchaser as the purchaser hereby acknowledges...

23 Any defect, shrinkage or other faults in the building which shall become apparent within a period of twelve (12) calendar months after the date of delivery of vacant possession to the purchaser and which are due to defective workmanship or materials or the said building not having been constructed in accordance with the said specifications and plans as approved by the appropriate authority (amended or unamended as the case may be) shall be repaired and made good by the vendor at his own cost and expense within one month of its having received written notice thereof from the purchaser...

[3] The purchasers took possession of the house in November 1984, and then found cracks on the walls, that the ground was not even, and one of the ceiling boards had apparently been replaced earlier but it had not been painted, with the bathroom upstairs leaking. On being informed, the vendor/builder caused repairs to be carried out. The purchasers then moved into the house. One or two weeks later, they found that the back door could not be closed, the house itself seemed to tilt to one side and to be sinking too with a long crack being seen between the kitchen and the lounge, vide P11, the group of the photographs. The purchasers then moved out of the house in August, the following year, in 1985. The Lembaga Letrik Negara disconnected the electricity supply to the house after an inspection of the house, apparently for the sake of safety. Solicitors for the purchasers wrote to the vendor/builder which admitted the liability to repair the defects. This Court observes the unusual commercial integrity of the vendor/builder from the evidence in this case, even though the Court would have to make findings of liability or non-liability according to the usual criteria.

[4] It would appear that the neighbouring houses were similarly affected. The vendor/builder even then, already attributed the problem of these cracks, etc to the movement of soil underneath the land caused by a stream nearby due to the dry season, an allegation, of course, that remained to be proved.

[5] As more cracks appeared, the vendor/builder wanted to carry out 'cement-grouting' to remedy the problem and the purchasers felt they had enough of these repairs and wanted an assurance that such cement-grouting would really be a measure that would remedy the problem, and would be a guarantee of its non-recurrence. The vendor/builder would not give such a guarantee or assurance. A stalemate was